Total Visits

Tuesday, 28 August 2012

As the possibility of a Scottish “Yes” vote for independence approaches, I am noticing that some people are focussing more and more on the question of the Barnet Formula.

The Barnet Formula is named after the former Labour Minister, Joel Barnett, now Lord Barnet, who devised it, he says: “Not so much on the back of a ‘fag packet’ but on the back of a ‘match box’.” It was originally intended by him to be a one year kick-start to the Scottish economy back in the 70’s. It is however significant that the political situation at the time was that the Scottish National Party were making serious headway in Scotland and therefore Labour’s agenda was to try to buy Scottish votes with English money! The extra Barnet funding of course therefore started before a single barrel of North Sea oil came ashore, but already the Scottish National Party were making wild claims that all of the North Sea Oil was “our oil”!

I have already blogged on this subject before that, in fact, on normal International Conventions, perhaps half of North Sea oil is in fact English oil and not Scottish oil. The English oil includes virtually all the North Sea gas that falls under what are now British waters. It is perhaps also relevant that, with the three British Establishment political parties being dyed in the wool Europhiles, the European Union is in the process of making a claim not only to all our fishing stocks, but also all our mineral rights as well, including all of North Sea oil. Needless to say that none of the Lib/Lab/Con careerists are to be trusted with preserving “our oil”!

The effect of the Barnet Formula is to give the Scottish people not only a subsidy from English taxpayers (the proportion of that subsidy depending on the view take of who owns the North Sea oil), but an additional subsidy over and above what would be spent in England for equal need. Every Scottish man, woman and child receives State spending of just over £2,000 each more than would be spent on the average English man, woman and child.

Even the poorest parts of England receive less public spending than the richest parts of Scotland.

For as long as the Scots are within a single State this is grossly unfair regardless of where the money comes from. To this extent whether Scotland pays its way or not is irrelevant to the unfairness of extra Government spending that is occurring unrelated to need. In fact if North Sea oil is taken out of the equation, the Scots are currently receiving a subsidy from England in the order of £32 billion a year. It is only if you attribute almost all of North Sea oil to Scotland that Scotland appears to break even on its spending and that, of course, is only for as long as oil prices remain high.

There are two reports which are well worth reading for anyone who wants the detail of how the Barnet Formula works. The first one that I would recommend is the Taxpayers Alliance Report, which I had a hand in commissioning with Matthew Elliott. It was done by a much respected economist who bent over backwards to be “fair” to Scottish arguments. The Labour Government itself described what Scotland was getting from the English taxpayer as a £12 billion a year “union dividend”, so you can be sure that, if anything, the amount of money given by English taxpayers is vastly in excess of even the headline comments made in the Taxpayers Alliance Report. (You can find the Taxpayers Alliance Report here >>> http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/unequalshares.pdf).

There is a further report that is worth reading, it is of course much more in depth, as it is the Cross Bench (independent) Report from the House of Lords in 2009. For anyone who wants to know the details of exactly the extent of cross border subsidy from England, then this is the report for you. It is however lengthy and detailed. It is nevertheless a highly inconvenient report to those so-called Unionists whose idea of a United Kingdom is that the English shut up and pay for everyone else. That is why it is rarely mentioned in the British press! (You can find this House of Lords report here >>>> http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldselect/ldbarnett/139/13902.htm)

Saturday, 25 August 2012

Stephen Goldspink (in the dark blue shirt) is standing for Cambridgeshire Police Commissioner in the November Election and needs support, help leafleting and inevitably money! If you can help please email him on Cambridgeshire@EngDem.Org

Yet again people who live in England suffer at the hands of a Government who have not the slightest inclination to support the people of England, inflicting a rail fare rise of the rate of inflation plus and extra 3% - making a whopping 6.2% rise! That’s a huge increase, but in Scotland, the rise is only inflation plus 1%.

Why is this? Because the Scots receive a bigger share of the UK’s income per head and the Scottish Government stick up for the people of Scotland. Thus neither they, nor those people who live in Wales and have an assembly to speak up for them, pay prescription charges, but the people of England do – and how - £7.65 per item!

All of the countries in the UK have a separate assembly to stand up for their citizens, except England. As a result, those who live in England are continually exploited and discriminated against by Governments of all colours, mainly led by Scots (Brown), those with Scottish roots (Cameron) and those who simply won’t see the problem (Clegg).

If England was fairly funded, there would be more money for our local Government, our health service and our police. We’re not asking for favours, just fairness. Isn’t it strange how there are laws preventing discrimination against people for all sorts of reasons, but also laws that promote direct discrimination depending upon which country of the UK you live in, rubber stamped by British Establishments parties who deliberately refuse to see the double standards.

According to Government statistics Scotland gets over £2,600 for every man, woman and child than England's "Eastern Region".

November 15th 2012 sees elections for Police and Crime Commissioners across the UK, and I am standing in Cambridgeshire. I offer sound business and police related experience and an excellent track record in representing people, against a background of standing up for England. Please don’t vote by simply by colour – think about who you want to effectively represent you, and send a message about inequality and unfairness in England to the complacent and disinterested major parties.

Friday, 24 August 2012

499 years ago!As the SNP are building up to huge celebrations across Scotland, of the 800th anniversary of the defeat of an invading English at Bannockburn, spare a thought for the anniversaries of the many battles fought to defeat invading Scottish armies.9th September is the anniversary of the Battle of Flodden Field when one of the last of many invading Scottish Armies was smashed, in 1513. Here is a link to the wikipedia account which is worth reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_FloddenNext year will be its 500th anniversary. What should English nationalists do to mark the occasion?

Wednesday, 22 August 2012

Some of the readers of this blog kindly send me articles to publish. Here is one by 'Leon Legend' which is interesting, thoughtful and thought-provoking but is based of course on his opinions. See what you think.

He has called it 'ISLAM'In order to understand the rapid demographic transformation of Britain and especially England it is important to understand the context in which these changes have taken place and this means that we must go back to the post war period and look at the developments that took place in the following decades.After the 1939-45 war the British economy was in need of reconstruction. There was a shortage of labour due to the number of war dead and it was assumed by politicians at the time that if any meaningful post war reconstruction was to take place then those labour shortages would have to be filled. The invitation was given to start a campaign to encourage West Indians into the country to fill vacancies in the health services, transport and manufacturing. Initially thought of as a temporary arrangement this immigration eventually took on a dynamic of its own as family members came to the country to join those already working here. The British people did not like or want this as they began to see their historic places of abode demographically transformed in a very short period of time. Enoch Powell sensed the unease of the nation and warned the political establishment and the country in his now famous 'Rivers of Blood' speech that if this process of immigration continued there would be social and racial conflicts as the demographic profile of the country continued to change. Powell was a visionary whose demographic projections have turned out to be perfectly accurate e.g. he told his audience in his Rotary Club speech that 4.2 million immigrants would be settled in Britain by 2002. The ethnic population of Britain in 2001 was 4,635,296. Mocked and ridiculed by Liberal/left politicians Powell stands out as a man of integrity and honour compared to the intellectual pygmies of the traitorous Liberal / Left that so despise our history and heritage today.During the 1970s immigration took on more impetus with the arrival of Pakistanis and Bangladeshis who came to work primarily in the cotton mills of England. Again it was argued that these workers were needed to fill gaps in the labour market and to ensure the survival of northern industries. Places such as Bradford, Burnley, Oldham and Rotherham saw significant arrivals of cheap labour into these areas and within a decade the demographic profile of these areas had profoundly changed. As it happened these arrivals only enabled a temporary reprieve of these redundant industries and many were forced into unemployment as the mills closed down. As these new arrivals settled evidence of racial and cultural conflicts began to emerge and people were increasingly uneasy with the levels of immigration into England. There had in fact been violence and conflict between whites and West Indian immigrants in the late 50s and 60s.Although many in the country deeply opposed the levels of immigration into England it must be recognised that many people today have come to accept the views of the European and British elite opinion formers. I believe that the wounds of racism and fascism were still wide open even into the 70s and 80s and that popular misgivings about immigration and particularly Islam were easily quashed by official 'anti-racist' doctrine and politically correct intellectual fashion. Another factor that is often ignored is that the threat from the Soviet Union during the Cold War seemed very real and the European elites were preoccupied with the materialist ideologies of the Cold War. This preoccupation with the Cold War meant that the collective eye was taken off the radical Muslim ball as it was during this time that the Muslim world was reawakening and becoming bellicose and aggressive and this was precisely the time Britain allowed many from Pakistan to enter the country.Continuing with this theme I think that Post war exhaustion and the collapse of the British Empire gave rise to a post war flagellatory guilt. The humiliation of the Suez crisis in 1956 impressed upon Britain and the world that she was no longer the major force that she had been. The dominant moral mood of post war Britain and indeed Europe was one of repentance for two historic misdeeds; Colonialism and Nazism. Post war Europeans and the British in particular felt a sense of moral illegitimacy that deepened as the decades passed in relation to immigrants and ethnic groups. Driven by postcolonial guilt and the loss of Empire, the collapse of a world role Britain's elites have decided that England's identity and values are largely racist and discriminatory. Nationalism and patriotism, especially English patriotism is dangerous and incompatible with the emerging post war world. During the 70s and 80s as these feelings of guilt increased the need to transform a national culture into a society based on diversity and multiculturalism gained strength. Majoritarian values and the idea of the patriotic nation are now viewed as illegitimate and a source of shame. This of course explains why Britain has become enmeshed in the E.U. as it allows the liberal left elite to promote the doctrine of universalism expressed through, for example, Human Rights laws and transnational organisations such as the U.N. and the International Criminal Court or the European Court of Justice. The deligitimisation of the nation state and the undermining of patriotism are necessary conditions for the emergence of a multicultural and diverse Europe governed by transnational elites. All national cultures must be viewed with suspicion and this is why our children are no longer taught their national story or their history. They must be denied a sense of historic place, a sense of belonging to a specific people with a specific history and culture; they are denied their rightful heritage, robbed of it, so that they can be ideologically manipulated to be citizens of a new multicultural order. This is what the social engineers of the new world order must do to our children to make them citizens of the new Europe! Mass immigration is a strategy the political elites use to undermine nationalism and patriotism as it weakens national cultures and fragments society. This is underpinned by the concept of cultural relativism.Cultural relativism dictates that all cultures are equally moral and valuable, though in practice western culture is often presented as inferior to others, stained as it is supposedly by racism and imperialism. If all cultures are equal then the State cannot promote any specific culture as being dominant, even those of its own people. The cultural relativists of the left deny that immigrants should assimilate since that by definition suggests that there is a dominant culture to assimilate into that is more valuable than ethnic cultures. Cultural relativism is gradually destroying English traditions and cultural identity, but of course that is the whole point of it. English culture, what's left of it, is simply one of many and no longer has any special status or significance. It is no more valid than any Pygmy culture!The increasing unease the working class felt about the rapid demographic changes taking place were ignored by most politicians and indeed those who raised the loudest protests were deemed to be racists and xenophobes. By the 1980s the levels of post war immigration had reached significant proportions and it had become a major issue for the Left. It was clear that sinister developments were taking place on the Left of the political spectrum as they abandoned the working class for its failure to achieve its historic mission of transforming society from a capitalist to a socialist utopia. The working class remained stubbornly patriotic and did not share the liberal elite's love of diversity. The working class went from being the salt of the earth to the scum of the earth as the Left salivated over its new agency of social transformation i.e. immigrants from the Third World.These neo-Marxists continued to use the Marxist model of capitalism which argued that there is a conflict between two main groups; the working class and the capitalist class with the capitalist class exploiting and oppressing the working class. Now the new oppressive class is the heterosexual white middle class male and the oppressed and exploited are the new victim groups: Blacks, women, Gays, Muslims and any other designated group that does not support the so called white middle class hegemony! Same Marxist model; new actors! These new victim groups have replaced the working class as the vehicle of social and economic transformation so desired by the Left due to their hatred of western civilisation. Such was the new agenda and politics of the 80s.The greatest betrayal of the working class of course was yet to come. In 1997 the country elected Tony Blair's New Labour Party and during Blair's term of office the levels of immigration skyrocketed and changed the demographic profile of England forever. More immigrants came into the UK (mainly England) between 1997- 2010 than arrived on these shores between 1066-1997; some 3.7 million arrivals and an unspecified number of illegal immigrants that could number anything up to a million. New Labour politicians deliberately lied about the numbers coming in and the alleged benefits these immigrants brought to the country.The impact that these levels of immigration have had on the English working class have been well documented by Migration Watch UK: workers priced out of the job market by cheap immigrant labour, depressed wages for those in the lowest income brackets, English people pushed to the back of the housing queues, whites reduced to minority status in their towns and cities, difficulties getting their children into local schools and nurseries, white children reduced to minority status in their schools with the subsequent promotion of every culture but their own and the working class treated with contempt and seen as being beyond the pale because they wouldnt subscribe to the cult of multiculturalism and political correctness in the way the political elites would have liked them too. The working class have been punished by the Left liberal elite for their failure to celebrate diversity and multiculturalism; they have been abandoned and left to rot on stinking run down council estates with their anxieties and concerns simply ignored. The New Labour project did not need them for they found a new proletariat in the Third World immigrants to realize their new vision of multicultural utopia.Writing in Prospect magazine Professor Coleman, a leading Oxford University demographer, warned the huge numbers of foreigners landing on our shores will transform the U.K. He said official projections estimate that the U.K.'s population will rocket to 77 million by 2051 and 85 million by 2083.The expert went on: 'On those assumptions the 'white British' population would decline to 45 million (59% of the total) by 2051. He states that; 'Were the assumptions to hold, the white British population would become the minority after 2066'. 'It's a milestone that would be passed much earlier in younger age-groups'.Worrying as these demographic projections are it is clear to any objective observer however that the immediate danger to the people of these Islands is the existential threat posed by militant Islam. Melanie Phillips in her book 'Londonistan' argues that; ' London has become a major global centre of Islamist extremism-the economic and spiritual hub of production and distribution network for the most radicalised forms of Islamic thinking which pumps out an ideology of hatred for the West and recruits soldiers and raises funds for worldwide terrorist JihadIn January 2008 Michael Nazir Ali the Anglican Bishop of Rochester declared that the ideology of Islamic extremism had succeeded in turning already separate communities into no-go areas where people of a different faith or race risked threats, abuse and even violence if they accidentally stumbled into these no-go zones. Of course it was fitting that a Pakistani convert to Christianity exposed these areas of segregation as any member of the white indigenous population would have been called a racist for pointing out the obvious! This is the situation now in Britain and particularly England that only people from ethnic minorities are able to discuss issues that most whites would like to discuss but are afraid to do so openly because governments Hate Laws.The Bishop is of course correct in his observations, Muslim enclaves are just that: areas of separate development which are not integrated with the rest of a town or city-just below the surface in these communities exists a low level form of warfare between Muslims and their neighbours which occasionally explodes in rioting and violence. Of course the liberal elite in Britain do not refer to these areas as Muslim but refer instead to them as 'Asian' areas blaming the cause of the conflicts and tensions on racism or discrimination. The issue of religion is carefully avoided.The terrorist attacks in London in 2005 by 'British' Muslims should have demonstrated to the Left / Liberal elite appeasers that a bellicose and aggressive Islam with a religious agenda had embedded itself in Britain and was part of a world-wide resurgence Of Jihad against the West. Instead our cowardly politicians blamed socio-economic factors and or alienation among young Asians who were vulnerable to Jihadist propaganda. Every excuse was mustered and every rationalisation used to avoid the obvious conclusion that these attacks, like every other Islamic attack, were religiously inspired and therefore part of the global Jihad against the West.Islamic immigration continues relentlessly into Britain and Europe our politicians have abrogated any responsibility to ensure the safety, well-being and security of the British people. The creeping Islamisation of Britain continues apace with many parts of the country now taking on an Islamic character. Areas that were once white and proudly working class now resemble parts of Pakistan and Bangladesh. These are largely no go areas for non-Muslims and the police have effectively given up policing these places for fear of being accused of racism or Islamophobia. If the demographic projections are correct the Muslim populations will continue to grow and with their higher fertility rates we can expect over the next 20 to 30 years more and more of our cities taking on an Islamic character with more concessions made to Muslims by cowardly politicians keen to win the Muslim vote. It is very likely that a Muslim Party will form and that Sharia will become more evident in British culture. There is no question that it will be promoted and practiced in Muslim segregated areas. The future looks grim indeed for Britain and Europe, according to many.It is my belief however that we can stop these processes and reverse these trends. People do not want to be subject to population replacement because they feel attached to the civilisation their ancestors created and they don't want it exchanged for a society in which they are forced to adapt to the culture of Islam. However our freedoms and our civilisation will disappear unless we fight to preserve them. Freedom is not a right passed from one generation to the next. Each generation must be vigilant and fight to maintain freedom. Our children will not forgive us if we don't.

Whilst the Yorkshire gag is a more humorous point, nevertheless anyone that puts forward either idea at all seriously needs to be told - in no uncertain terms - that both Cornwall and Yorkshire are traditional counties within the oldest nation state on earth – England!

PS As GB or Great Britain is only Scotland Wales and England - what are our Olympic masters telling us has happened to Northern Ireland and the 'United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland'? I expect Sinn Fein are happy!!

One of the readers of this Blog has sent me the correspondence below and authorised me to publish it for him. It is worth reading but is in the usual order for email correspondence trails. I would like to thank him for sharing this with me (and you!). Many of his points regarding the Ethnic English apply to all those that reside in England whatever their ethnicity.

Hello Robin,

I apologise for the delay in replying to your email I have been ill.

Robin you ask can you put a copy of my correspondence up on your blog?

The answer is yes, but please ensure that my name, postal address andemail address are removed. And post as anonymous.

I have had check through to remove them., but could you double checkplease and remove them if you find them?

Thank you for this. Did you see this link to what I said about the WLQCommission?(Click here>>>http://robintilbrook.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/mckaywlq-commission.html).I attach their transcript of my evidence.

Can I put a copy of your correspondence up on my Blog? If so, do youwant to be anonymous?

Dear Robin I recently sent you an email in the strictest confidence(see below original email for details).

I now send you this follow up email in the strictest confidence in thehope it may be of use?

I have since received a reply from my MP Elizabeth Truss and MarkHarper Minister for Political Constitutional Reform.................................................

Their reply:

ELIZABETH TRUSS MPConstituency Office: The Limes

32 Bridge Street Thetford

Norfolk IP24 3AG Tel: 01842 757 345

Westminster Office: House of Commons

Westminster

London SW1A OAA

Tel: 020 7219 7151

HOUSE OF COMMONS

LONDON SWIA OAA

May 2012

Dear

Please find enclosed a reply from Mark Harper MP, Minister forPolitical and Constitutional Reform, regarding your concerns aboutvarious devolution matters. I note that the Government has established aCommission to consider how the House of Commons might deal withlegislation that affects only part of the UK, following the devolutionof certain legislative powers to the Scottish Parliament, the NorthernIreland Assembly and the National Assembly for Wales. You can finddetails of the Commission at: http://tmc.independent.gov.uk.

Thank you for your email of 12 April to the Minister for the CabinetOffice, on behalf of your constituent, who has asked about variousdevolution matters. I am responding as Minister for Political andConstitutional Reform.

Mr ..... comments that there is growing anger among the English whichwill ultimately result in England supporting Scottish Independence andthe break up of the United Kingdom. I should like to state from theoutset that the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister stronglybelieve that like other members of the Union, Scotland benefits frombeing part of the UK and the UK benefits from Scotland being a part ofit. This Government believes that devolution within the United Kingdomprovides the right balance between responsibility, accountability andrepresentation and we will work vigorously to maintain this position.

Mr ....... mentions discrimination against England because Scotlandhas its own Parliament. Whilst devolution has created separate anddistinct representative bodies for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland,the UK Parliament still legislates for the whole of the UK on a range ofmatters, including economic policy. Under existing arrangements,different political parties are currently in government across thedevolved administrations and the UK Government, without having entirelyseparate governments for each territory within the UK. The existingdevolution settlements were designed to meet varying needs, so thatlocal decisions could be made to respond to local problems, resulting indifferent policy approaches which best meet the needs of different partsof the UK.

As devolution has evolved over the past decade, questions aboutfairness and balance in the consideration of legislation by the House ofCommons have increased. Mr....... has commented on MPs who do notrepresent English seats voting on English laws. These questions to whichthere are no straightforward answers, not least because there is nodefinition of what a solely English matter is, need to be addressed. Itis for this reason that the Government has established a Commission toconsider how the House of Commons might deal with legislation whichaffects only part of the United Kingdom, following the devolution ofcertain legislative powers to the Scottish Parliament, the NorthernIreland Assembly and the National Assembly for Wales.

The Commission has started its work and will make its recommendationsto the Government during the course of the next Parliamentary session.Mr....... may wish to make representations directly to the Commission,details of which can be found at htt://tmc.independent.gov.uk.

I note Mr ..... concern that the current system of devolution fundingis a factor that encourages English resentment towards devolution. Asset out in the Coalition Programme for Government, we recognise thatthere are concerns about the current system, including those expressedby the Holtham Commission. However, at this time the priority must be toreduce the national deficit and any changes to the current system mustawait the stabilisation of the public finances.

I hope that you and your constituent find this reply helpful.

MARK HARPER

.........................

Robin I personally believe as sole Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irishpolicies and matters have been identified, hence their having theirassemblies and parliaments, then there is no reason why solely Englishpolicies and matters cannot be identified. I also find it insulting thatMr. Harper says that reducing the national deficit has priority overmaking changes to the current system of devolution funding i.e. TheBarnett Formula. This again is wrong as the governments spendingpolicies at home and abroad prove that reducing the deficit is not theirpriority.

Kind Regards

----- Original Message -----

To:Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2012 4:18 AMSubject: Scottish Devolution and a way to start to alleviate ethnicEnglish resentment

Dear Robin,

I send this in the strictist confidence, in the hope it may be of helpwith any of your further talks with the Commission on Devolution. Iapoligise that I did not send earlier but was unaware of or dates.Hopefully it may be of use in some areas?

Below are my emails with Elizabeth Truss MP and my original email.Though I have asked her to forward this to Francis Maud, she has 'takenthe matter up' with him. So it seems she may been selective in what shehas taken up?

Thank you for contacting me with your concerns regarding Scottishdevolution. I have taken up this matter with Francis Maude MP, Ministerfor the Cabinet Office. I will contact you again as soon as I receive aresponse.

Best wishes,

Elizabeth Truss MP

Sent: 05 April 2012 09:07To: TRUSS, ElizabethSubject: Scottish Devolution and a way to start to alleviate EthnicEnglish resentmentImportance: High

Date: 5th April 2012

Dear Elizabeth Truss MP,

A few months ago you informed me that the policy regarding my concernsappear to be the responsibility of the Minister for the Cabinet Office.Therefore may I ask you as my local Conservative MP if you could pleasesend my below letter to the Rt Hon Francis Maud MP.

Kind regards

Mr

.....................

Date: April 2012

To: Rt Hon Francis Maud MP

Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General

Ways to start to alleviate ethnic English resentment ScottishDevolution

Dear Rt Hon Francis Maud MP,

I have been advised to contact you by the European Parliament. And havebeen informed by my local Conservative MP Elizabeth Truss, that thepolicy regarding the below concerns on accepting ethnic Englishethnicity is the responsibility of the Minister for the Cabinet Office.

I would like to draw your attention to the growing anger of the ethnicEnglish concerning Scottish independence and the devolution of powers ofWales and Northern Ireland. And the lack of recognition of the ethnicEnglish.

The national media and many MPs have quiet rightly high-lighted ethnicEnglish anger and resentment at the double standards and discriminationat play against them. Scotland has it own parliament and devolvedpowers. Scotland receives a huge yearly payment in the form of theBarnett formula. Scottish MPs can vote on English only matters, as canWelsh and Northern Irish Mps. Yet the English cannot vote on thesecountries matters.

The ethnic English do not have their own parliament as Scotland does,nor devolved powers, and less money is spent per head on people inEngland by the state than in Scotland. An average of £1,600 a year lessis spent on them. Why all the above? This is surely a case ofdiscrimination.

The Treasury’s Public Expenditure Statistics recently projected UKGovernment annual spending per person as £8,588 in England – and £10,212in Scotland.

The ethnic English not only receive a raw deal because of all the abovethey receive a raw deal from the state because it is still is refusingto accept the ethnic English as people and England as a country in theirown right. ..Which is ludicrous because the ethnic English go backnearly two thousand years and England is certainly the oldest country inthe UK and probably older than most in Europe.

In fact this anger at being treated unfairly has meant most ethnicEnglish people (who are the majority population within England) nowsupport Scotland’s march to independence.

Scotland’s independence would mean the break up of the UK, as NorthernIreland and Wales would follow suit and the ethnic English would alsosupport them. Because the ethnic English increasingly no longer careabout the UK, because they believe themselves not accepted or supportedin any way and denied on all areas by the Government and state. Frombeing refused the right to state and write that they are ‘EthnicEnglish’ on forms, to England being denied devolved powers that areequal to the devolved powers of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.(One sensible brake through was in the ONS 2011 Census where ethnicEnglish were allowed to write down they were/are ethnic English).

Only by the Government and state accepting the ethnic English identity(the majority population within England) can the UK remain intact. Forwithout the ethnic English supporting full devolution for Scotland theattempt would fail.

A recent poll by the think tank IPPR, and Cardiff and EdinburghUniversities showed almost six out of ten ethnic English say that theydo not trust the UK Government to work in the best long-term interestsof England.

The IPPR Director Nick Pearce urged England’s mainstream politicalparties to adopt Englishness with a sense of urgency and seriousness,and take necessary steps so that it finds political expression.Discussing about England and Englishness is misconstrued by some asseeking to weaken the union, noted Pearce, but this is absolutelybaseless. “The longer this debate is ignored, or worse, denied, the morelikely we will see a backlash within England against the UK”.

Most ethnic English support Scotland, Wales and Northern Irelandbecoming independent. And daily that ethnic English support growsbecause the ethnic English have had enough of being denied theirethnicity, voice, country and devolved dowers. Of being denied equality.

And in the long run there is certainly nothing any government can do inpreventing the brake up of the UK from eventually happening, unless,they start to fully accept ethnic English ethnicity and identity, and soalleviate the growing anger and fury that is mounting and so prevent anirreversible political backlash from the ethnic English.

It is this lack of acceptance and representation of the ethnic English(the English are an ethnic group so have their own group ethnicity, asdo all ethnic groups throughout the UK. The difference being all otherethnicities are accepted by the UK Government and state as having equalhuman rights) ..that is causing discontent and anger and the widespreadrealization of injustice and discrimination against the ethnic English.

The Government and states present non acceptance of the ethnic Englishpopulation throughout the UK could even be seen as Government and statebacked racism, discrimination and bigotry. And the ethnic English arestarting to see it that way.

The prime minister once said to Andrew Marr “I’m a Cameron, there isquite a lot of Scottish blood flowing through these veins” in acceptanceof his own ethnicity.

All peoples belong to various ethnic groups and the ethnic English arealso an ethnic group, and just as all other ethnic groups are acceptedin this country as having equal human rights. Isn’t it about time theethnic English were are also accepted as having equal human rights?

In many areas throughout the UK the ethnic English are increasingly theMinority Ethnic Group and this trend is set to continue, and thesepeople feel abounded and let down by the state. So it is only right thatthe Ethnic English should have available to them the considerations,resources, support and equality that are afforded to all otherethnicities.

This is of great importance to the ethnic English of population, asmany of its young are suffering from further education being placedbeyond their reach, the elderly retired and sick struggling for support,resources and to be heard. And for those through no fault of their ownare being made redundant or are already unemployed.

By accepting the Ethnic English, and accepting them as having equalhuman rights along with all other ethnicities, this will go a long wayto ease increasingly high racial tensions that are becoming rifethroughout England and the rest of the UK. As the state’s present nonacceptance of Ethnic English ethnicity is major contributing factor inthis area.

MPs have informed me they accept the ethnic English in their own rightand as a people. This is only right and how it should be in a democraticcountry that prides itself on equality.

We can hardly say we want the United Kingdom to remain together for thebenefit of all, and equality is the right off all, when we ignore andfail to accept a constituent part of the UK’s make up, those of EnglishEthnicity. …What confusing message does that send out?

The ONS (Office of National Statistics - which consults and providesinformation to national and local government, etc). The EHRC (Equalityand Human Rights Commission - Section 3 states the EHRC has a generalduty to work towards the development of a society where equality andrights are rooted). And The Charities Commission.

..All accept the ethnic English (indigenous English ethnicity), andaccept them as having equal human rights along with all otherethnicities.

The United Kingdom is member of the European Union (EU) and one of itsfounders.

The European Parliament has contacted me stating

Thank you for your message to the European Parliament concerning"English ethnicity". The European Parliament accepts people of allethnicities as possessing equal human rights. It would appear that it isparticularly a matter for the government of the UK to ensure that allethnicities within the UK are equally treated and respected and so Iwould suggest that you write to UK Members of Parliament or indeed tothe Prime Minister.

In addition, I should point out to you that the Court of Human Rightsin Strasbourg is not an organ of the European Union, but of the "Councilof Europe", which encompasses many more states than the EU and which wasset up shortly after the Second World War, largely to ensure that thekind of persecution of populations on the basis of race, creed orethnicity should never again happen in Europe.

Sincerely,

G. R. Chambers,

Citizens' Enquiry Service,

European Parliament.

The United Kingdom was one of the drafters and adopters of the

The United Nations Declaration on Human Rights (UNDHR).

Convention on Civil and Political

Article 16

‘Everyone shall have the right to recognition everywhere as a personbefore the law.’

Ethnic English persons are not recognised everywhere before the lawbecause their ethnicity is yet to be accepted by a UK Government. EthnicEnglish persons are not recognised everywhere before the law becausewhen they complete any official form (bar the partial ONS recognition)and write or state they are Ethnic English, their ethnicity is not yetaccepted.

Article 19 parts 1 and 2

1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.

2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this rightshall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideasof all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or inprint, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.

Ethnic English persons do not have a right to hold opinions withoutinterference because their ethnicity is not yet to be accepted by a UKGovernment. This means someone who is ethnic English cannot holdopinions and express them as an ethnic English person because they arenot accepted as an ethnic English person. So when they try to state theopinions they hold as an ethnic English person, those opinions arequestioned and not accepted by officials and so interfered with byofficialdom because the Government does not yet recognise the ethnicEnglish and ethnic English persons.

Ethnic English persons do not have the right to freedom of expressionand all this includes, because their ethnicity is yet to be accepted bya UK Government. And so they cannot express themselves on all officialforms and as a group, as can all other ethnicities within the UK.

Article 26

All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without anydiscrimination to the equal protection of the law. In this respect, thelaw shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all persons equaland effective protection against discrimination on any ground such asrace, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion,national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

Ethnic English persons are Not equal with other ethnic persons beforethe law and entitled without any discrimination to equal protectionbefore the law. Because ethnic English persons are yet to be accepted bya UK Government. So ethnic English persons are not guaranteed equal andeffective protection and nor their human rights.

This is why it is essential that for the UK to remain intact and forequality to prevail their needs to be Government acceptance of theethnic English and ethnic English persons, to reassure those whoseethnicity is indigenous English that they are accepted just as all otherethnicities are. And that Government accepts that they along with allpeople of all ethnicities as possessing equal human rights.

In recognising the ethnic English and ethnic English persons the UKGovernment as a member of the European Union will be complying with itsobligations, lawful duties and responsibilities as set out within -

The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Treaty ofLisbon.

The United Nations Declaration on Human Rights.

The European Convention On Human Rights.

The Council of Europe.

Note: Concerning the Lisbon Treaty

In addition, the Treaty of Lisbon guarantees the enforcement of theCharter of Fundamental Rights. The EU therefore acquires for itself acatalogue of civil, political, economic and social rights, which arelegally binding not only on the Union and its institutions, but also onthe Member States as regards the implementation of Union law.

How does the Charter of Fundamental Rights improve the rights ofEuropean citizens?

The Treaty of Lisbon makes a cross-reference to the Charter as a realcatalogue of rights that the EU believes all citizens of the Unionshould enjoy vis-à-vis the Union's institutions and the Union's lawbinding guarantees. The six chapters of the Charter cover the followingaspects: individual rights related to dignity; freedoms, equality,solidarity, rights linked to citizenship status and justice. Theserights are drawn essentially from other international instruments, likethe European Convention on Human Rights, giving them legal embodiment inthe Union.

The institutions of the Union must respect the rights written into theCharter. The same obligations are incumbent upon the Member States whenthey implement the Union’s legislation. The Court of Justice will ensurethat the Charter is applied correctly. The incorporation of the Charterdoes not alter the Union’s powers, but offers strengthened rights andgreater freedom for citizens.

A Europe of rights and values, freedom, solidarity and security,promoting the Union's values, introducing the Charter of FundamentalRights into European primary law, providing for new solidaritymechanisms and ensuring better protection of European citizens.

* Citizens' rights and Charter of Fundamental Rights: the Treaty of

Lisbon preserves existing rights while introducing new ones. In

particular, it guarantees the freedoms and principles set out in theCharter of Fundamental Rights and gives its provisions a binding legalforce. It concerns civil, political, economic and social rights.

Mr Maud could you please answer the following questions

1. Does the UK Government accept ethnic English people together withpeople of all ethnicities as possessing equal human rights? Yes or No

2. Does the UK Government accept ethnic English Ethnicity beingaccepted as all other ethnicities are within the UK? Yes or No.

3. As with all other ethnicities, are/will the ethnic English andethnic English persons be able to state and write that they are ethnicEnglish on all Government, NHS, Educational, County Council, and allother official forms etc? Yes or No.

4. When the those of English ethnicity write or state they are ethnicEnglish persons/person will they be accepted and recorded as being so,without any refusal to accept them, or alteration of their entry, ortheir entry being recorded differently by those who are requesting formcompletions and those asking questions, and by other interested parties.Yes or No?

5. Does the Government believe in equality for all and accept that allhave the right to recognition everywhere before the law as a person, andthat people of all ethnicities and ethnic persons possess equal humanrights (this includes the Ethnic English) ? Yes or No

If all the answers to all the above questions are yes, then equalityshall prevail and those people of ethnic English ethnicity will befinally accepted and respected just as all other ethnicities within theUK. And they will then be part of the Prime Minster’s Big Society and beable to participate in it fully and equally. And as mentioned the UKGovernment as a member of the European Union, will then be complyingcorrectly with its obligations, lawful duties and responsibilities asmentioned above, including the Treaty of Lisbon. And as stated by theEuropean Parliament.

(European Parliament states ‘The European Parliament accepts people ofall ethnicities as possessing equal human rights’ ... ‘it isparticularly a matter for the government of the UK to ensure that allethnicities within the UK are equally treated and respected’ …)

Can I say that if the Government claims it is not the Government’s norCivil Service responsibility, remit, policy or duty to accept aparticular ethnicity nor particular ethnic persons. …Then it is not theGovernment’s nor Civil Service responsibility, remit, policy or duty toaccept any particular ethnicity or particular ethnic persons.

This means the Government’s commitment and requirements on EthnicityMonitoring, Ethnic Quotas’ Race Relations and Equality would be null andvoid. As all these can only be implemented and achieved by Governmentand Civil Service accepting and recording of particular ethnicities andethnic persons.

So it is a case of the Government accepting all people of allethnicities within the UK, and accepting they all possess equal humanrights. Or the Government accepting none, which means the governmentdoes not accept people of all ethnicities as possessing equal humanrights, nor accepts them as ethnic persons.

Tuesday, 7 August 2012

In the last few days we have seen an interesting disclosure about Tony Blair’s government’s approach to looking after the constitutional interests of England. This issue is usually referred to, within the media and Establishment as the “West Lothian Question”.

Although the issue was first raised by Tam Dalyell, the then MP for West Lothian, by calling it the West Lothian Question the media and Government disguised the fact that this question isn’t at all about West Lothian, but is entirely about England and England’s place within the constitutional framework.

Many questions have been asked in the past about why it was that England was left out of Labour’s devolutionary scheme, when Labour was considering devolution for Scotland and Wales. When he was a Minister, Jack Straw used the National Interest/Security exemption to refuse to release the Cabinet papers on this decision and thus to avoid the ruling of the Information Commissioner ordering their production.

All Jack Straw’s efforts have now come to nothing with the answers given by Kim Howells to this Coalition Government’s West Lothian Question Commission under the Chairmanship of Sir William McKay, which I gave evidence to earlier this year (here is a link to that evidence >>> http://robintilbrook.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/my-evidence-to-mckaywlq-commission.html ). Kim Howells in the BBC website article below frankly confesses that, knowing that the English question was difficult to answer except by creating an English Parliament, the Labour Cabinet deliberately set about trying to avoid dealing with the question at all.

Now that the cat is out of the bag on this particular issue, it is interesting to see that one of the chief architects of Scottish Devolution, the capo di capi of Labour’s Scottish Mafia, Gordon Brown, will come out at this week’s Edinburgh Literary Festival, with a speech no longer using his old expression of “The Nations and Regions of Britain” (where the regions were England), but now he is talking about “Scotland and the UK” separate entities!

So I wonder if we will find that, after all the huge financial transfers from England to Scotland organised by Gordon Brown; and the transfers of whole Government offices to Scotland, such as the UK’s tax collectors; and the use of untold billions of the Defence budget spent in Scotland, not only in doing the vast investment in the infrastructure of Faslane but also the current building of two aircraft carriers in Scotland instead of on Tyneside; after all this, are we now to find that Gordon Brown was a Scottish Nationalist after all?

Here is the BBC article on Kim Howells’ disclosure:-
24 July 2012

McKay Commission: Labour 'avoided devolution questions'

Labour made a "conscious decision" to stay away from the West Lothian question, Kim Howells says
The previous Labour government decided to avoid dealing with the "very difficult" questions created by devolution, says a former minister.

Kim Howells said Labour opted to "stay well away" from the implications for MPs' voting rights.
The former Pontypridd MP gave evidence to the McKay Commission meeting in Cardiff into the West Lothian question.

The question asks whether Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish MPs should have a vote on English-only matters.

'Small anomaly' It was first posed in the 1970s by Labour MP Tam Dalyell, whose constituency at the time was West Lothian. Dr Howells, whose ministerial posts included time in the Foreign Office and education, was on the cabinet committee that drew up the post-devolution settlement after the Labour landslide at the 1997 general election.

He told the commission that the then Labour government made a "conscious decision" to "stay well away from" the question.

He said: "We never discussed it. We had all heard of the West Lothian question.

"We all knew Tam Dalyell and knew the questions Tam was asking were very difficult questions."
Since the creation of the Welsh and Northern Ireland assemblies, and the Scottish Parliament, Dr Howells said he could not see an alternative to the creation of an English parliament - although he added: "I'm not in favour of one by the way."

Creating a grand committee of English MPs would be "just another way of avoiding the West Lothian question" and would "generate a demand for an English parliament", he said.

Former First Minister Rhodri Morgan told the commission: "On a scale of anomalies I would call it a pretty small one."

Mr Morgan posed an alternative "West Glamorgan question", citing the example of English Conservative MPs who rebelled against local government re-organisation in their own constituencies, but voted for it in Wales.

Most bills which pass through parliament affected public spending, he said, making it difficult to ring-fence English-only votes.

Asked if that meant all MPs should be allowed to vote on bills with resource implications, he said: "I can't see how they can be excluded."

Monday, 6 August 2012

The English Democrats and I are pleased to announce that issue 2 of our magazine 'England Awake!' is now out. All our members and supporters should receive their copy this week as our party prepares for our annual conference on 22nd September in St Albans.